View Full Version : Time is ticking! Get Licensed! (cover your A$$)
2nd January 2001, 01:43
Only two more months before lock-down! All stations that are not licensed to stream will be fined. Everyone has two months to have everything taken care of before they start going down the YP lists and start closing down stations that are streaming without some sort of legal license.
I have been reading up on the news servers, there are a few routes to go. Get a blanket license through another company (ex: stream to Live365, let them Broadcast), purchase your own (base fee starts around $300.00 per year), or stream music from local groups that gave you writen authority.
For more info, check out my news website (http://www.ibc-radio.com/news.htm), www.ASCAP.com, www.RIAA.com, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 114 (requires Adobe Acrobat plug-in) (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/hr2281.pdf).
This is just a webcaster up-date to make sure everyone is informed.
2nd January 2001, 19:54
Who are the 'they' that you mention will be going down the list and checking it twice, trying to find out who's naughty or nice?
Everybody else, get ready to duck, here come the nazi's!
2nd January 2001, 21:17
What exactly is the difference between say shoutcasting and walking around with a boombox. People choose to listen to what you play in both situations. Are they gonna start charging people who have a boombox playing when someone sits down next to them?
I doubt that anyone could control all of the people who stream music over the internet. shoutcast.com and radiospy.com have literally thousands of music streamers listend and I'd bet that the majority of which probably do not operate with the proper licenses. The beauty of shoutcasting for many people (including myself) is that it's a great way for inexpierenced broadcasters to get music they like to potential fans.
I hope that licenses are never required for people who love music to shoutcast, I think that would be a tragedy. :(
2nd January 2001, 22:46
Legally speaking, licenses are already required to stream music over the internet already (ASCAP, BMI, RIAA). However, they are currently not enforced that much right now. IBC was just warning us that they will be starting to enforce these now!
3rd January 2001, 01:48
DeSano, it's totally different. You are basically running a radio station, and you can bet that Kiss FM have to pay their royalties..
3rd January 2001, 07:56
I would like those big companies to pay me to listen to that shit they call music. :) $300 might begin to cover it.
gee lets not mention the $20 a pop i spend on cds.
3rd January 2001, 12:36
Actually if you get licensed thru ASCAP and BMI, it costs closer to about $500 a year for licensing (I'm in the process of doing this right now.)
And I thought CD's cost closer to $10 a pop than $20?
3rd January 2001, 15:50
Here's something to really frost you all! The recording industry has basically been having us all bend over and take it for awhile anyway.
It costs about $1.20 per to make and distribute audio cassettes. It costs less than $.50 to do the same with CD's.
Average cost of a an Audio CD ~$11.70
The artist gets less than $1 of that. Gee, where does the rest go?
3rd January 2001, 17:53
I don't know where you're buying music, but here (florida, usa) anything goes at a minimum of $15 while the average is around $18. plus tax.. and viola.
all units in US DOLLARS.
and yes.. he is right.. total cost of makin a cd with all expenses included tops out at 3.50 (1.20 for cd/case, some for ink/paper/imbezlement/alittlemoreformisterexecutives../ shipping/lawyerfees/comeonbabeitsLAeverybodyisdoingittypeofagents)
3rd January 2001, 17:56
whoops ... yes... i can get some of the classical stuff for as cheap as $9.. but how many times do i need the same song? classical variety cds aren't that various.
3rd January 2001, 19:48
Well I guess that's why so many people turn to Napster and CD-R drives.
3rd January 2001, 22:48
Sorry, it's just that here around Chicago, you can get any CD at Best Buy for about $11.99. At the very most $12.99. There is a record store called Rolling Stones where you can get a lot of CD's (even new releases) for $9.99.
4th January 2001, 02:34
What I mentioned above was just a warning. It does not matter if you bought the CDs, you must be licensed to broadcast them. Also, being on a YP, either Shoutcast's, RadioSpy's, ShoutClub's, or even AudioRealm's... Thats were they will start looking. Of course if your on Live365, no worry. They do the broadcasting for you, and they are licensed. If your with AudioRealm, you covered under their RIAA blanket license. You must be DMCA Compliant though.
Best bet, is to do some reading. I left some handy links loaded with information a webcaster should see. You have options, I would just hate to see people taking the hard road.
Like mentioned above, everyone should be licensed by now, and starting this Feb. They will start cracking down.
5th January 2001, 00:08
Does anyone know what a DCMA license costs? The RIAA isn't talking and they're supposedly the ones delegated to issue them. After searching their web site, I got the impression that they're a bunch of ___________. (Fill in your own colorful metaphor.)
On the other hand, the publisher organizations, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are very upfront and helpful. With online rate calculators and online licensing they seem most open to the new technology. While fees vary, depending on how much revenue your site generates and what type of service you offer, most of us would fall under the minimum rates. They are, ASCAP - $264, BMI - $250 and SESAC - $100. These are annual rates except for SESAC, which is two times the $50 six month licenses. That would mean $614 per year, plus whatever the RIAA decides to charge. Whether it's worth it for a hobby is a personal choice.
5th January 2001, 01:22
Well you could just host with a company that already has all the licensing issues covered. We, WedgeMusic, already have most of our licenses and are in the process of obtaining the rest of our licenses to be 100% compliant with our customers. I do believe that Radstream/Mprelay also has most of their licenses or is in the process of obtaining their licenses so their customers will be covered too. Oh, and lets not forget good 'ol Live365.com which has its licenses to cover all of its users. You have to remember that they do have some iffy requirements in their end user agreement, though. The price of a pay service like ours or Radstream's would end up costing you less than price of all your license requirements, which is quite affordable for the end user or hobbiest. So hey, why not get a high capacity host and be licensed for less than the cost of obtaining your own licenses. It just makes sense :)
5th January 2001, 01:37
Geee, WedgeMusic has a GOOD point! Paying WedgeMusic or MPRelay to broadcast for you means you don't have to have the broadcasting license, they do! You will still pay out a fee to them, but it will be a hell of alot cheaper than all those licenses. Joining AudioRealm and using SAM would take care of your RIAA licence. Follow the DCMA Regulations (no license needed, its just THE rules to follow to be licensed) and you will be good to go.
I use Live365 myself. Not the greatest, but its free. As long as you don't mind your listeners hearing 1 ad at the start of their connection. You don't have to use Live365's software either. I am also a member of AudioRealm (I use SAM), and I have my stations set up to abide by the DCMA regulations.
Oh, and I am a member of ShoutClub. They are just a all around great help.
5th January 2001, 02:13
Removing yourself from the YP will keep them (RIAA< etc, etc) from messing with you?
This is just a hobby, and a fun one, but $620 a year for proper licensing? I don't think so. It's bad enough that we give the Recording Industry an extra $10-$12 per CD, now we'll have to pay to play?
Waiting for the day that the artists go the pay per song route over the net, and stick it to the RIAA
5th January 2001, 02:42
IBC, lets not start a flame war here, but I do believe that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not cover webcasts. As I recall, and I may be wrong here, the DMCA only applies to personal playings and recordings. Webcasting with SHOUTcast is not a personal playing or recording, but rather a public one. And yes, you are right, Live365, as I said, does cover your licensing requirements. It is people broadcasting off their home lines from their own SHOUTcast server that are usually not covered. I believe you are also right about Streaming Audio Manager (SAM) covering your licensing needs too. You've got to remember that the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, etc, don't really mind the webcasting as much as the file sharing. I mean isn't it listening to a song on the radio that makes you want to go buy a CD? But we still have to be fair and be legal too. I'm going to research that in depth and post back here once I find out all the nitty gritty details about the DMCA and SAM.
5th January 2001, 03:05
I am not flaming, I said you had a good point!
Read the file from the link I posted at the start of this thread about the DCMA. You have to abide by those rules to be licensed (its not a license its self), otherwise your license will be invalid. You can stream music, but you HAVE to have a licence to broadcast music to the public.
Like I said, you have a good point. If all the stations use WedgeMusic, MPRelay or Live365 to broadcast thier music, then they don't need a license from ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. Their broadcaster needs to have them.
Now if you plan on making money from your broadcast, then you HAVE to be licensed with the RIAA. Using SAM, and being a member of AudioRealm (follow their rules) you will be covered under their RIAA license.
Oh, and not being on a public YP may keep you from being busted. May that is.
6th January 2001, 15:30
you think your paying a lot for your CD's?!!?!?
let me tell u about the UK...
average album now is about £13.99 ($18 ish)
" cd single £3.99 ($6.50 ish)
double album £21.00 ($25 ish)
we can buy blank cd's for about £40 on the 100 <ok quality
or sum blanks for £15 on the 50 <utter rubbish quality.
so if u imagine a record company buying in blanks on the millions i can assure you there not making them for $1.50 per unit...more like $.50 !! and that includes all of the shebang of printing and so on...
RECORD COMPANYS HAVE BEEN RIPPING US OFF FOR YEARS
long live napster, audiognome, gnapster and any other FREE service...although saying that, even napster is on the charging bandwagon soon :( grrrrrr
6th January 2001, 16:20
If we take off the "List on shoutcast.com" option, how would they know to shut us down if we didn't have proper licensing?
6th January 2001, 17:31
They wouldn't, but how would you get any listeners? Also, if you have a website that's listed on the search engines they might be able to find you. If they decide to try that hard to find non-compliant stations.
6th January 2001, 20:44
WAIT A SEC HOW IM AN AMAUTURE RADIO "HAM RADIO" OPERATOR CURRENTLY HOLDING A TECHNICIAN LISSENCE AND THE WORD AMAUTURE IS THAT USE BROADCAST UNDER A COUPLE RULES AND THE MAJOR ONE IS YOU DO NOT EXCEPT MONEY SO IF THE CHOOSE TO CHARGE CARGE THE ONES THAT ARE RECIVING MONEY THAT UNDER DEFFINITION DEFINES THEM AS COMMERICAL BUT AS FOR US JOE BLOWS THAT ARE DOING THIS FOR FUN WHY SHOULD WE BE CHARGED....NO LOL....THIS IS CRAP AND IS TOTALY UNCALLED FOR IT IS A HOBBY...IT IS LIKE CHARGING US HAM RADIO OPERATORS FOR USING THE AIR WAYS....THE AMAUTURE MEANS FREE.........THIS IS A DILIMA..WE SHOULD NOT LET GO...WHY DOESNT SHOUT CAST GET A LICCENSS AND COVER US LIKE LIVE365 SOO WE R ALL GOOD...??????...... I MEAN COME ON....LETS ALL E-MAIL THE LICCENSE PEOPLE AND PROTEST THIS IS LUDICRAST.
6th January 2001, 21:55
How does these changes affect international (i.e. non-American) broadcasters? I broadcast from Canada and have had difficulty determining who and where licensing fees should be directed. The DMCA is American legislation, but does it have any international ramifications?
Please advise if you have any further information concerning these issues.
7th January 2001, 01:42
Ok, I'll tackle this in two parts. First, to answer Bee's points, it is a strange situation with nullsoft/AOL obtaining a license for SHOUTcast users. First, AOL merged with Time Warner so they own all the rights to Time Warner label music and hence no license needs. To cover SHOUTcast users they would have to get licenses from their competitors. Also, why would they want to pay possibly thousands or more in license fees for a freeware program. Me thinks not Xavier. Now, to answer core's questions, if your broadcast can reach America you MAY be liable for your content. This is similar to the Yahoo case in France where Yahoo had Nazi items for sale on their auction area. French law prohibts the sale of hate items, and thus Nazi items. Even though Yahoo is located in America, they had to comply with French law because their content reaches France. To be on the safe side I would just comply with all Canadian laws. I doubt you would have any legal implications if you conform with the laws of your country. Hope this helps you all.
7th January 2001, 02:05
THANK YA..............U BRING UP SOME INTERESTING TOPICS AND INTERESTS................THANKS................
7th January 2001, 04:53
If you don't plan on making money from your station, then you do not have to worry about the RIAA.
Not sure how the borders work. I believe the songs are crossing the borders, so I believe so do the laws when it comes to broadcasting. This is my guess at this time.
If Shoutcast were to offer licenses to their users, they would have to broadcast the music for you. You could not use your own IP, unless YOU had the licence.
7th January 2001, 19:38
I just want to address the reference between ham radio and webcasting made by BEE. While it is very nice to see another ham radio operator here, references between ham radio & webcasting is not relavent. According to FCC part 97, broadcasting on ham radio frequencies is strictly forbidden. Only one-to-one, one-to-many, and propagation beacons are allowed. Under almost all circumstances, copyrighted materials are not allowed.
Also, please note that for many years there was a licensing fee of $25 (I think) for a ham lisence. I think this was changed in '82 or '83, just before I received my first license.
All the best & 73s
KC7RAD (general class)
7th January 2001, 19:41
Oh, another thing... SHOUTcast does have a blanket license for one (or more) of these organizations. I don't want to say too much about this. The moderators should be able to clarify this...
7th January 2001, 20:27
YA I KNOW WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT OF WAS THAT AMAUTURE MEANS WE CANNOT EXCEPT MONEY 4 WHAY WE DO ,YES I UNDER STAND I CANT BROADCAST MUSIC ON HF OR ANY OTHER HAM FREQ. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT OF THE AMAUTURE PART...
KB3FUH(TECHNICIAN HOPING TO UPGRADE)
8th January 2001, 01:04
This is not completely correct. If you are broadcasting COPYRIGHTED MUSIC you must license that music from the copyright holders. There are two legally distinct copyrights associated with any song, one for the song itself (the composer), and another for the particular recording of the song (the performer). These days, for reasons I won't get into, most major labels own the rights to the recordings of the songs, not the performers.
When you are playing a song IN PUBLIC (and yes, this technically includes blaring your boom box on the beach for an audience) you are legally required to obtain a public performance license for the song. Webcasters also must obtain a license to the recording as well. Here's the details:
Song Licensing (the underlying musical composition, comprised of the written notes and lyrics, referred to as a "musical work" in copyright law).
There are three major "performing rights" organizations representing music copyright holders: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. When you perform music which is copyrighted by members of these organizations, you must pay these organizations instead of the copyright holders. These organizations then distribute the royalties to the copyright holders based on their statistical monitoring. (For example, broadcasters send the performing rights organizations playlists, other music licensees like bars, restaurants, etc will randomly be monitored to see what they are playing.) Most music falls under this category, all major-label music does.
If you do not pay these organizations, you must be prepared to show that you are not paying ANY music by their artists. Unless you have negotiated direct deals with all the artists you play, you should license with them. Again, this only applies to the underlying musical composition itself, not the recorded performance of it.
Recording Licensing (the sounds, including the recording artist’s interpretation of the musical composition, and the creative efforts of the producer, sound engineers and background musicians, referred to in copyright law as a "sound recording")
Thanks to the DMCA, webcasters, unlike other broadcasters, are required to license the recording as well as the song. This is where the RIAA comes in.
There are 2 types of licenses: "compulsory license" (sometimes called statutory licenses) and "voluntary license" or negotiated licenses. A compulsory license is where the license fee is fixed. It's called "compulsory" is that the licensor has no choice but to grant you the license if you pay the fee. Compulsory licenses are the ones that have all the complicated DMCA rules: A webcaster may not play in any three-hour period more than three songs from a particular album, including no more than two consecutively, or four songs by a particular artist or from a boxed set, including no more than three consecutively, etc.
A voluntary license is one where you negotiate the terms with the copyright holder directly. These must be dealt with on a case by case basis which makes the compulsory license much less red tape. Voluntary licenses are much more flexible, and may be worth it to your station. For example, if you are broadcasting a specific genre that has only a few record labels distributing that type of music, then a voluntary license would probably be much easier to get.
Electronic music (dance/techno/electronica) is much more complicated. Quite often these performances do not exist as "written notes and lyrics" but rather as a sound performance only. In this case, in theory, there would be no need for song licensing, only recording licensing. In these cases, you may only need the permission of the recording copyright holder to perform the work publicly.
Another alternative is to broadcast from Hong Kong or some other country that does not have as draconian of laws about webcasting.
9th January 2001, 00:37
So, has anyone heard or read when the crackdown will begin? I have heard it was starting February 1st. Not sure how true that is, but thats what I read on a few news sites. Including this one... Music News (http://www.ibc-radio.com/news.htm)
9th January 2001, 01:14
That's your site, so it's not fair to cite it as your "source". :-)
Can you give us a reference to the original article?
9th January 2001, 01:25
Each topic has the referance listed right below it. Wether its the LA Time, New York Times, CNET, or even Billboard. Those news articles are up-dated daily. If you click on the link, it will take you to the source!
I posted my news site as a starting point to find out more in the music bizz.
9th January 2001, 04:12
And which of these stories are you referring to?
Music business news
Digital Audio Satellite Scrapped...
Excite** Mon Jan 8 17:36:20 PST 2001
Digital Audio Satellite Scrapped...
TelecomClick** Mon Jan 8 17:14:33 PST 2001
Alan McGee Goes Weekly With Radio Session...
Billboard** Mon Jan 8 16:42:22 PST 2001
BMG loses two top executives...
CNET** Mon Jan 8 16:11:42 PST 2001
MP3.com Moves To Streamline Online Music Delivery...
Information Week** Mon Jan 8 14:15:16 PST 2001
All I'm asking for (politely!) is a URL directly to the story you're talking about. Not a link to an index page that changes each day.
9th January 2001, 04:52
no CDs are costing a bottom of $15 nowadays....and alot of them are up around or above $20 now...usually these are double CD albums.......it sux!
9th January 2001, 05:11
copyrights, over-charged prices, napster, riaa....ah!!!
to hell with all this goddam litigation! seriously
when did we, as a society, get all tied up in red tape!!!
i wish all these damn heads of capitalism would sit back
and remember what music is REALLY all about, maybe recall those great war songs they used to chant.....
according to the RIAA, "mis-use of these new technologies" is what is hurting the future of creativity....
Hey RIAA, Metallica and all you other hard-asses....!
this red tape, litigation and legal bullshit is what is really hurting the future of those hard-working artists....
not the advancment of our technology....
all you heads of these record companies are nothing more than greedy, cash-thirsty gloutans who wanna suck the life outa the entire culture of music....:(
9th January 2001, 11:30
I did some digging, and it looks like its this May. Here is the article that I seen stating a date... Although this had to do with the RIAA.
9th January 2001, 12:06
We are being threatened by the U.K agencies - P.R.S / P.P.L
at the moment, and have had letters from their lawyers(sic).
P.R.S (Performing Rights Society) collect on behalf of performers and song writers, not the record co's.
I think you have a better deal because ONE of them wants £2.95 per day, about $2,000 per year! We are not making a penny, and have lost £80,000 last year!
It is not as if we have many listeners either :(
Oh, by the way - that still does not fully license(sic) us coz there is no structure for the record companies to collect copyright fees in the U.K!
Rotten sods! Talk about selfish, in the 60's the record companies used to PAY radio stations for 'ADVERTISING' their products!!!!!!
Now we made them rich enough for them to have lobbying powers - to make the greedy, thieving bastards richer!
End Of Rant - but I am sure you can empathise with me...
Cable Radio Ltd.
10th January 2001, 11:27
This was a quote from another news article. Seems like things are still in the air...
"Equally important, the licensing situation, always baroque, became significantly more complex in 2000. On the one hand, it was easier than ever for users to obtain music without having to worry about copyright; on the other, the rules for providing music with appropriate clearances became more confused than ever. ASCAP, BMI and the RIAA announced systems intended to make it easier for online firms to obtain the requisite licenses, but at the end of the year music publishers and the major labels were locked in a fierce legal struggle over the terms of payment for music downloads and streaming -- or whether any payments at all would be necessary. A publisher vs. label lawsuit, the first within living memory, capped off a year in which lawsuits flew so thick and fast that the music industry seemed to have embroiled itself in a Hobbesian war of all against all."
Quated from: http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=20238&pod_id=9 For more music news, check out my news site by clicking HERE. (http://www.ibc-radio.com/news.htm)
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.